Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > As I've suggested before, if the pressure for additional TLDs is not
> > answered by this working group, new root systems and hence new TLDs will
> > develop outside of ICANN's coverage.  Those new TLDs, registries, and
> > registrars will have to adhere neither to WIPO policies nor to ICANN's
> > contracts.
> 
> A minority will always be able to do things in a non-standard way

Is this an assertion that multiple roots are "non-standard"? If so I'd
certainly like to see, chapter and verse, page and line number, what
Internet Standard is being violated.

Of course new root systems have not happend in a large way so far, there
hasn't been a need for it.

I'm merely pointing out that if if this WG comes reaches a decision of "no
new TLDs, either by explicit choice, or by inaction resulting from
deadlock", that such a decision can readily trigger the accellerated
expansion of new TLDs that are entirely beyond ICANN's ability to
regulate.

Clearly, if I am protecting my portfolio of marks, I would be concerned
about the possibility of a new set of TLDs that do not have to adhere to
the WIPO procedures or the ICANN registration contracts.

One can dismiss multiple roots, but the downside can be very large if one
is wrong.

I certainly would not want to tell my clients that "we have built a strong
front door to protect your marks, but the back door is wide open and we
have no means of closing it, all we can hope is that nobody finds it."

It is simply a risk that one must consider when evaluating whether it is
worthwhile for this group to continue its work.

A well balanced answer coming from this WG could stem the pressure for
multiple roots and thus ensure a regulatory regime without gaps.

On the other hand, if this WG does not come up with a balanced answer, if
it comes up with an answer that blocks any new TLDS, then the advocates of
that position may find that they win that battle but end up losing the
war.

		--karl--